Welcome

Welcome to the POZ/AIDSmeds Community Forums, a round-the-clock discussion area for people with HIV/AIDS, their friends/family/caregivers, and
others concerned about HIV/AIDS. Click on the links below to browse our various forums; scroll down for a glance at the most recent posts; or join in the
conversation yourself by registering on the left side of this page.

Privacy Warning: Please realize that these forums are open to all, and are fully searchable via Google and other search engines. If you are HIV positive
and disclose this in our forums, then it is almost the same thing as telling the whole world (or at least the World Wide Web). If this concerns you, then do not use a
username or avatar that are self-identifying in any way. We do not allow the deletion of anything you post in these forums, so think before you post.

The information shared in these forums, by moderators and members, is designed to complement, not replace, the relationship between an individual and his/her own
physician.

All members of these forums are, by default, not considered to be licensed medical providers. If otherwise, users must clearly define themselves as such.

Forums members must behave at all times with respect and honesty. Posting guidelines, including time-out and banning policies, have been established by the moderators
of these forums. Click here for “Am I Infected?” posting guidelines. Click here for posting guidelines pertaining to all other POZ/AIDSmeds community forums.

We ask all forums members to provide references for health/medical/scientific information they provide, when it is not a personal experience being discussed. Please
provide hyperlinks with full URLs or full citations of published works not available via the Internet. Additionally, all forums members must post information which are
true and correct to their knowledge.

It's clear that you don't personally care about the issue. Am I really the only one who cares ?

I'd care if it's just the HIV issue, but it seems it's not. So if we are to focus on your right to advertise your viral load I'm still confused why one needs to do that for safe sex. Not a lack of caring just confusing to me.

I am well aware that there are other options for me than Grindr which don't have this censorship, some of which I already use. It's worth nothing that Grindr is one of the leading such applications however, and I think that's one reason I find it so egregious.

I am almost certain that they delete the undetectable viral load information because it implies barebacking. Of course, you'll want to hear it from the (w)horse's mouth. But if it ends up being that, will that appease you?

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

I am almost certain that they delete the undetectable viral load information because it implies barebacking.

I agree.

Mad, while you say it's not your intention to imply that you're advertising for barebacking, people can't read your mind.

I certainly know that if I were to see that bit about having an undetectable VL in someone's profile on a "dating" site, my first thought would be that they're implying that it would be completely safe to bareback with them.

I DO care - very much - about the issue of being allowed to state your positive hiv status in your profile. Not allowing it is like pushing poz people back into the closet and locking the door behind them.

I also care about being able to state that you're poz with an undetectable viral load - and I agree that it should not be permitted because it DOES send out the wrong (totally safe to bareback with) message, whether it's your intention or not.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

It's clear that you don't personally care about the issue. Am I really the only one who cares ? I submit that others might be interested to know this, and have something to say about it, from the gay press, Act Up, ASOs, health departments, HHS, CDC, FCC, congress, just to name a few off the top of my head. I am giving Grindr time to provide an explanation first, though.

Really? you think that Congress would care about this? Other than using it as propaganda against gay rights by the far right, I don't see Congress giving a rat's ass about this "injustice". Additionally, I see Health Depts, the CDC and the HHS more concerned around the "looking to bareback" view of this.

I get why you care -- and I, also, think that the HIV+ part should be allowed. However, I have to agree with Ann and the others who think that the UD VL part DOES imply a desire to bareback in most minds. Oh -- and your earlier statement that taking your status out forces others to "assume you are negative" is really a key to this epidemic's continuation. While I think you are right -- people should "assume you are positive" and take appropriate safe sex practices to hear. I would love to see you try the HIV+ without any VL info and see what happens -- if nothing else, it will help pinpoint the real issue.

At any rate -- you have the right to feel as you do -- but given your thoughts on who would "care", I think you need to step back and try to look at this from a less emotional stance, as I think you are fooling yourself.

I am almost certain that they delete the undetectable viral load information because it implies barebacking. Of course, you'll want to hear it from the (w)horse's mouth. But if it ends up being that, will that appease you?

I would still be upset, as I feel the implication is not clear at all. I would want them to clarify their policy in this regard.

Mad, while you say it's not your intention to imply that you're advertising for barebacking, people can't read your mind.

Indeed, they can't read my mind, but that should go both ways.

If the UD VL is the reason they are censoring it, they are exercising their mind reading abilities by presuming I am seeking bareback sex.

Quote

I certainly know that if I were to see that bit about having an undetectable VL in someone's profile on a "dating" site, my first thought would be that they're implying that it would be completely safe to bareback with them.

Really, Ann ?Wow. That's certainly not at all what I was trying to convey, as I have already stated.

I don't see how this implies bareback sex any more than somebody stating they are "neg".

Quote

I also care about being able to state that you're poz with an undetectable viral load - and I agree that it should not be permitted because it DOES send out the wrong (totally safe to bareback with) message, whether it's your intention or not.

I have asked the question above that nobody commented on : if I listed "HIV+ with a 5 million viral load", should that be allowed ? What would be the implication of that ?

Would that send the message that you better not have sex with me without condom ?Or that I'm typhoid Mary trying to give the gift to bug chasers ?

HelloUndetectable viral load does not equal 100% safe to bareback. Speaking from exprience having caught Hep C with an undetectable viral load and thinking stupidly the worst I risked was the clap, chlamydia, etc etc.I guess some of you could "assume" someone saying they are "undetectable" on grindr is looking for bareback. I guess I am pretty thick because it wouldn't be my immediate assumption... Plenty of HIV+ people say they are "HIV+ and fit and sane" etc etc - that sort of identity. But i do agree, Grindr might be censoring all this viral load info and maybe, madbrain, you could just put a + HV+ + in your profile and you wouldn't get censored.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

HelloUndetectable viral load does not equal 100% safe to bareback. Speaking from exprience having caught Hep C with an undetectable viral load and thinking stupidly the worst I risked was the clap, chlamydia, etc etc.

Correct !

Quote

I guess some of you could "assume" someone saying they are "undetectable" on grindr is looking for bareback. I guess I am pretty thick because it wouldn't be my immediate assumption... Plenty of HIV+ people say they are "HIV+ and fit and sane" etc etc - that sort of identity.

Thanks, mecch. That's the sort of thing I'm trying to convery.Though I'm not going to pretend I'm either fit or sane.

I saw this guy on the other night. He has HIV neg in his profile. Saw him again tonight. They aren't removing it, so it would seem. So, why allow HIV neg? I still wonder if you just had HIV poz and nothing else, would they remove that?

I also wonder whether Grindr has local moderators. People in each area who are actual members, or who are not seen. And, maybe you just have a moderator with poz issues? Or, everything is done from their grinding headquarters?

Maybe the universe is telling you that Grindr isn't worth your time...? You don't seem willing to drop the extra working and just go with HIV+ and Grindr clearly doesn't like all the wording. Here is siwtzerland they are inconsistent in their censoring of words clearly referring to preferred roles and dick sizes.

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

Really, Ann ?Wow. That's certainly not at all what I was trying to convey, as I have already stated.

I don't see how this implies bareback sex any more than somebody stating they are "neg".

Really, Mad, really!

There's another thread going here in Living about hiv transmission laws. Ted posted part of an article about a criminalisation case currently going on in Illinois. I read the same article, as it was linked to at the bottom of poz.com's recent newsfeed item on the story.

In this article, it states:

"Peller said that science has shown that for people receiving HIV treatment who have undetectable viral loads, there is not a risk of transmission."

This idea of "Treatment as Prevention" has been getting a lot of air-time lately, particularly on sites that cater to gay men.

And the thing is, these news blurbs oftenusually omit the details such as having a concurrent STI like chlamydia or gonorrhea totally changes that message, and we also know that having an undetectable blood viral load does not always equal an undetectable semen viral load.

But people read the part about "people receiving HIV treatment who have undetectable viral loads, there is not a risk of transmission" and to hell with caveats and details.

So YES, I do think and would think, if I read such a profile, that a positive man advertising his UD VL on a "dating" site was saying - "hey, it's SAFE to bareback with me!"

Much more so than a man stating that he's hiv negative in his profile. With a negative declaration, there's still that element of doubt. "Hmmm... he may be poz and just not know it, or he may be lying"

But poz and UD? Again, with all the "Treatment as Prevention" stories flying about on the internet, and the lack of details and/or caveats that go along with the majority of these stories, it sounds like an advertisement that is essentially saying "I'm poz, but I'm safe to bareback with".

Mad, if you cannot see that, then you're either being obtuse, stubborn, or hell, maybe you just don't get it.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

Of course there are HIV+ guys on the crusing for sex scene, who say undetectable and want that too? But really the "undetectable" as an "advantage" in getting the sex, for this group poz on poz, isn't all that imporant cause a poz guy on HAART can bareback with another poz guy with a detectable viral load, not on hart - what would be the difference?

People are making up all SORTS of self-defined screwy rules with these factoids about who they will and will not, can and cannot fuck. One stereotype does not fit all.

THere are HIV+ guys who still hope to widen the available prospects to include HIV- guys who are willing to screw with HIV+ guys. THere are HIV- guys who fully intend to have anal sex with condoms, with these said HIV+ guys ("on successful treatment" or "undetectable") and the HIV- guy knowing that factoid is put at ease to go through with the sex.

So I don't think its OBVIOUSLY an invitation on Madbrain's part to bareback sex with HIV- guys "because its ok because I'm undetectable".

And poz-poz don't even have to bother with this info exchange about viral loads, many times.

I think its just Too Much Information and its Ambiguous Information. For a site like Grindr. Which is supposed to be all quick and "basic", minimum back story please.

There are other sites where you can go to town about all your OCD data about your HIV infection, etc. etc.

smboy and barebackRT come to mind.

« Last Edit: March 24, 2013, 09:32:47 AM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

So I don't think its OBVIOUSLY an invitation on Madbrain's part to bareback sex with HIV- guys "because its ok because I'm undetectable".

I am NOT saying that it's an invitation on Mad's part to bareback sex with negative guys. I'll accept his denial of this intention at face-value.

However, what I am saying is that many guys who either think they're negative or actually are negative will see it that way - in large part because of so many news stories currently in the media (particularly the gay media) who are saying things like what I illustrated above:

"Peller said that science has shown that for people receiving HIV treatment who have undetectable viral loads, there is not a risk of transmission."

Those of us who are poz (hopefully) know better, because we read more detailed articles on this subject, articles that point out that in order for Treatment as Prevention to work, there are various caveats involved.

But people who don't live daily with hiv won't necessarily be picking up on this information because the news articles OMIT THIS INFORMATION.

Sheesh. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. I get enough of that in Am I Infected so maybe it's time I bowed out of this thread and save myself a(nother) headache.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

However, what I am saying is that many guys who either think they're negative or actually are negative will see it that way - in large part because of so many news stories currently in the media (particularly the gay media) who are saying things like what I illustrated above:

"Peller said that science has shown that for people receiving HIV treatment who have undetectable viral loads, there is not a risk of transmission."

Those of us who are poz (hopefully) know better, because we read more detailed articles on this subject, articles that point out that in order for Treatment as Prevention to work, there are various caveats involved.

But people who don't live daily with hiv won't necessarily be picking up on this information because the news articles OMIT THIS INFORMATION.

Sheesh. I feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here. I get enough of that in Am I Infected so maybe it's time I bowed out of this thread and save myself a(nother) headache.

Ann is spot on here - When my partner and I had gotten together, he had many years of UD and CD4 that was above 1,000... We routinely practiced BB and I was one of those people (as was he) who thought that with his viral load being UD, him being on treatment, and his high CD4s that there was no possible way I would get infected....

Regular testing seemed to reinforce this false notion..

Until I tested positive.... and at the same time I tested positive, we found out that he had syphilis and I also tested positive for the dayuuummmm syphilis.....

So, I am living proof that treatment as prevention is a fallacy when other factors (such as someone being coinfected with syphilis) come into play.... So, while the popular thought or theory may be that being UD and on treatment means "no risk," it only takes one transmission to disprove that theory. Theory doesn't mean a thing when reality hits you in the face.

Theoretically, the odds of a meteor striking a populated area are astronomically small - tell that to the 1,000 or so Russians whose windows were broken out and who sustained injuries from a meteor strike or to a whole species (dinosaurs) who were wiped out....

It would be a dayuummm shame if a whole species were wiped out based on a notion of treatment as prevention, when there was a much more sure fire way of protection.... condoms.

Just my two cents....

As for the Grindr thing - I think there are much more important issues that energy could be spent on - perhaps, writing letters to one's representatives about potential cuts to HIV services based on budget sequestration..... Just a thought.

I also wonder whether Grindr has local moderators. People in each area who are actual members, or who are not seen. And, maybe you just have a moderator with poz issues? Or, everything is done from their grinding headquarters?

Thanks, tednlou2. Good questions. I have no idea.

So far, all Grindr has done in the ticket is acknowledged that my about line was censored, and they asked me what the previous text was.

Given this, I'm not optimistic that they will be able to trace it back to which moderator or moderators did it, and why.

I provided the censored text to Grindr in the original ticket, and provided it again, and have not heard back it.

I'm very well aware of the science and the reduced risks of HIV transmission by having an undetectable viral load, the possible difference in semen load, the increased risk if STIs are present, etc.

The problem I have is the implication you make that I automatically am seeking bareback sex because I am advertising my undetectable viral load, when others who don't list their HIV or viral load status are given the benefit of the doubt. The fact is, that I never stated I was seeking bareback sex anywhere. I feel that I should be given the same benefit of the doubt, not more, but not less. It's the presumption of bareback sex that I disagree with.

In any case, I changed my "about" text on grindr to "HIV+ with undetectable viral load seeking safe sex" yesterday. It was promptly deleted as well. So, I don't think that this presumption of bareback sex is the reason I'm being censored. I made it clear I was looking for safe sex, and it was still removed.

Grindr works in mysterious ways, and apparently not in the ways the mind readers on this forum think.

Mecch could be right, it may not have anything to do with HIV, have you thought about that?

No, I had not. Given that they left the rest of the profile intact and only deleted the "about" text, the entirety of which was "HIV+ with undetectable viral load" - which was deleted 5 times, and yesterday changed to "HIV+ with undetectable viral load seeking safe sex", which was deleted too.

As I already mentioned, they left the picture, the headline, age, height, weight, ethnicity, relationship status, etc.

If it was something other than this that they objected to, I assume that they would have deleted that something else, or my entire Grindr profile, even, which would have left much more doubt in my mind about was was being censored. But in this case, it seems pretty clear to me.

THere are HIV+ guys who still hope to widen the available prospects to include HIV- guys who are willing to screw with HIV+ guys.

Yes, this definitely applies to me. I'm seeking these guys, or HIV+ guys who are not out about their status, but in both case, I'm seeking safe sex.

Quote

THere are HIV- guys who fully intend to have anal sex with condoms, with these said HIV+ guys ("on successful treatment" or "undetectable") and the HIV- guy knowing that factoid is put at ease to go through with the sex.

I will say nearly all of the (self-identified) HIV- guys I have talked to won't have sex with someone HIV+ like me even with condoms, ie. they don't trust condoms to fully protect them in this situation. In a few cases, after pointing out my undetectable viral load and explaining what it means, some have changed their mind. And let me be clear : they change their mind about whether to meet me or not, not about whether to use condoms or not.

Most of them won't change their mind at all, of course. They will trust condoms to protect them with another self-identified HIV- guy, who might be lying to them, or just not know their real status, and carry a viral load. There is a huge contradiction. It's a tough nut I have never been able to crack. Someone else will surely figure it out some day. We will probably have a cure for HIV by then, I think.

Quote

I think its just Too Much Information and its Ambiguous Information. For a site like Grindr. Which is supposed to be all quick and "basic", minimum back story please.

There are other sites where you can go to town about all your OCD data about your HIV infection, etc. etc.

smboy and barebackRT come to mind.

Thanks. I had never heard of those sites, but as I have said, I'm not seeking bareback sex, and I mean that, so I'm not going to head to that last one. The former one seems to be centered around Europe, so that's not going to help much either.

I will say nearly all of the (self-identified) HIV- guys I have talked to won't have sex with someone HIV+ like me even with condoms, ie. they don't trust condoms to fully protect them in this situation. In a few cases, after pointing out my undetectable viral load and explaining what it means, some have changed their mind. And let me be clear : they change their mind about whether to meet me or not, not about whether to use condoms or not.

Most of them won't change their mind at all, of course. They will trust condoms to protect them with another self-identified HIV- guy, who might be lying to them, or just not know their real status, and carry a viral load. There is a huge contradiction. It's a tough nut I have never been able to crack. Someone else will surely figure it out some day. We will probably have a cure for HIV by then, I think.

Thats all very accurate and common. My experience too. Thus mine was the voice that tried to explain to others that your viral load info was not necessarily an invitation to come to the bareback orgry.

In the last two years there has appeared an odd little fetish group, however. THese are young, hot "lapins" or "lopes" who claim to be HIV negative and want to have multiple partners who are HIV+ and undetectable. I know about a dozen who go on and on with this scenario on a local chat. So its easy to get a double shot of craziness - the old fashioned HIV "good little soldiers" who wouldn't touch an HIV+ person with a 6 foot caddleprod, (and, by the way, are convinced HIV is transmitted by sucking peepee) and these odd "non bug chassers" chassing undetectable guys. Weird. And nobody wants to hear anything about untreatable clap or Hep C. And any decent looking guy with a huge schlong has a waiting list of guys willing to break their own unbreakable rules to get a crack at it.

Dating sites are so filled with weirdness its best you just don't fret too much about the siteowners, or all the nutcases, and just be thankful if you pull out a normal guy or two who turns into a decent date for whatever you are looking for.

« Last Edit: March 25, 2013, 04:31:25 AM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

The problem I have is the implication you make that I automatically am seeking bareback sex because I am advertising my undetectable viral load,

OK -- I now think that you have become completely irrational in this thread -- you are letting your indignation get the better of you.

Ann has NEVER implied that YOU ARE SEEKING BB SEX -- she has said that perhaps OTHERS are making an assumption that you are based on your advertising your UD VL & that is why your are being censored. There is a big difference there. Now -- go back and reread this paragraph and perhaps you'll retain that info.

Ann has NEVER implied that YOU ARE SEEKING BB SEX -- she has said that perhaps OTHERS are making an assumption that you are based on your advertising your UD VL & that is why your are being censored. There is a big difference there.

Thanks, Mike. I was starting to think I'd been posting in an alternate universe or something.

I wrote this last night, but was too tired at the time to post it. I wanted to proof-read it with fresh eyes.

"...health will finally be seen not as a blessing to be wished for, but as a human right to be fought for." Kofi Annan

Nymphomaniac: a woman as obsessed with sex as an average man. Mignon McLaughlin

HIV is certainly character-building. It's made me see all of the shallow things we cling to, like ego and vanity. Of course, I'd rather have a few more T-cells and a little less character. Randy Shilts

I've never looked at Grindr in my life, but I find this all so fascinating. Lots of talk about censorhip and such. If a person doesn't like the terms and conditions of any particular site, why not find another way of finding man sex?

When I moderated our newspaper forums, I was often accused of censorsing their right to free speech which is supposedly guaranteed. My standard reply was that we don't have the ability to stop anyone's free speech and they're more than welcome to create their own method of expression.

Censorship in relationship to our constitutional rights guarantee that we have the ability to freely speak up against our government without fear of recourse.

Wolfie

Logged

Complacency is the enemy. Challenge yourself daily for maximum return on investment.

I've never looked at Grindr in my life, but I find this all so fascinating. Lots of talk about censorhip and such. If a person doesn't like the terms and conditions of any particular site, why not find another way of finding man sex?

When I moderated our newspaper forums, I was often accused of censorsing their right to free speech which is supposedly guaranteed. My standard reply was that we don't have the ability to stop anyone's free speech and they're more than welcome to create their own method of expression.

Censorship in relationship to our constitutional rights guarantee that we have the ability to freely speak up against our government without fear of recourse.

Wolfie

I agree 100%. I don't get the injustice.

People confuse the right of free speech and censorship quite often it seems.

If I own a newspaper, magazine, or website I am allowed to control what is said or not said (and what you post or not post) I am sure the moderators of AIDSMeds would agree. That is my right, if you don't like what I have to say then create your own newspaper, magazine, or website. Now if the government tells me what I can or cannot say in my own newspaper, magazine or website then THAT is a violation of my right to free speech and therefore censorship.

I get not wanting to be put in the closet over your hiv status but its hard to understand the so called injustice and emotion of this thread.

People confuse the right of free speech and censorship quite often it seems.

If I own a newspaper, magazine, or website I am allowed to control what is said or not said (and what you post or not post) I am sure the moderators of AIDSMeds would agree. That is my right, if you don't like what I have to say then create your own newspaper, magazine, or website. Now if the government tells me what I can or cannot say in my own newspaper, magazine or website then THAT is a violation of my right to free speech and therefore censorship.

I get not wanting to be put in the closet over your hiv status but its hard to understand the so called injustice and emotion of this thread.

That's because there is no injustice involved here, only self-inflicted indignation. With all the comments, the salient facts have remained the same. There is no quest here to seek something noble or enlightening. Instead, the OP is determined to have his own way and he is angry that others will not bow to his demands. No, I don't see any injustice or denying of civil rights at all, just a badly played tantrum thread.

Really? you think that Congress would care about this? Other than using it as propaganda against gay rights by the far right, I don't see Congress giving a rat's ass about this "injustice".

Maybe Congress would be the wrong folks indeed, however, state legislators who have put requirements on us to disclose our HIV+ status might be interested in Grindr's actions interfering with such disclosure.

Thats all very accurate and common. My experience too. Thus mine was the voice that tried to explain to others that your viral load info was not necessarily an invitation to come to the bareback orgry.

Thanks, I'm glad there is at least one other person who isn't dense and making assumptions in this thread.

Quote

In the last two years there has appeared an odd little fetish group, however. THese are young, hot "lapins" or "lopes" who claim to be HIV negative and want to have multiple partners who are HIV+ and undetectable. I know about a dozen who go on and on with this scenario on a local chat.

I dare say that I have not encountered any member of that group this side of the Atlantic, but I will be prepared if it ever happens.

Ann has NEVER implied that YOU ARE SEEKING BB SEX -- she has said that perhaps OTHERS are making an assumption that you are based on your advertising your UD VL & that is why your are being censored. There is a big difference there. Now -- go back and reread this paragraph and perhaps you'll retain that info.

Mike, Ann was not writing about what assumption "others" would make when she wrote this. This is what first comes to her mind .

I certainly know that if I were to see that bit about having an undetectable VL in someone's profile on a "dating" site, my first thought would be that they're implying that it would be completely safe to bareback with them.

Mike, Ann was not writing about what assumption "others" would make when she wrote this. This is what first comes to her mind .

You really are too much, aren't you? You can not see clearly in regards to this topic. If you misinterpreted Ann's initial comment, fine, it could have been stated differently -- but she has explained herself since and CLEARLY stated that she was not saying that you were looking for BB sex.

Honestly, you are completely blinded by foolish indignation right now. You are so in need of being seen as a "victim" right now, that you either can't or won't read proper English. So have at it -- be a victim, but you really should just step back and take a breath here.

Grindr hasn't stopped you from saying you are HIV positive right ? Why is it so important to you for people on a sex hookup site to know you are undetectable ? Im needing a reminder on this because the thread is running a bit long now .

Thanks, Mike. I was starting to think I'd been posting in an alternate universe or something.

You may want to review everything you wrote in this thread, then.

Quote

Not allowing the poz part would be, like I said before, shoving us back into the closet.

Glad we at least agree on this one thing.

As I have mentioned, I have yet to see a single profile of stating HIV+ on grindr. I don't know if it's due to Grindr censorship or the fact that so few people ever list it, or some combination of both. My own about line stating "HIV+" has been up for a little less than 24 hours and is still there at the moment. I am still not confident that it will stay.

Quote

Mad, (again, provided it's only the UD part) is what's really getting to you the simple fact that someone said "NO" to you?

What do you mean by that ? Grindr saying "NO" to my profile ?Or others rejecting me because I'm HIV+ ?

Quote

Can you not look at the larger picture as to how others, particularly young gay men (new hiv transmissions are extremely high in young people (16-24), btw), might perceive the UD tag?

Innocent intentions on your part aside, you are not new to the scene. You are not young and naive.

You're not some 16-24 year old who knows very little about hiv because gay - and straight - teenagers are not taught how to protect themselves from hiv and other STIs in sex ed class.

You're not some 16-24 year old whose take-away message from the media - mainstream and gay alike - is that "aids is over/no longer a death-sentence", it's "manageable", and the recent kicker:

"Peller said that has shown that for people receiving HIV treatment who have undetectable viral loads, there is not a risk of transmission."

Intentionally or not, your UD profile add-on is sending out the wrong message to young, vulnerable, gay men. And that rankles.

I want to include the UD VL information because it does mean a lower HIV transmission risk factor, and, when this lower risk factor is combined with condom use, makes it extremely unlikely that any HIV transmission is going to occur. I do think it is better to include this information than just stating "HIV+" without any qualification about whether I'm on treatment or not, and whether it is successful or not .I don't see how having a risk reduction factor censored is doing a service to anybody.I am well aware it is risk reduction and not elimination, and only for HIV, not for STIs. To me, censoring information about one risk reduction factor makes as much sense as censoring other risk prevention factors.

As this thread clearly shows, I am not able to read the minds of how others will interpret or misinterpret the information about undetectable viral load and what it means or does not mean. I did not write the articles you refer to that mention nothing about STIs. When it comes to explaining the UD VL, I usually try to provide a link to http://tinyurl.com/hivtransmit . This headline clearly talks about STI. Grindr however censors URLs. They are not only disallowed in profiles, as they are assumed to be spam, but also I believe in conversations. Ultimately, the "about line" of a profile is not large enough of a space to remedy all the failures of sex education. I don't think it's fair to hold me personally responsible for them by censoring my profile. I actually do my best to explain what it means, that condoms should still be used, that blood and semen VLs can differ, than STIs can raise risk, and so on. I can only explain if somebody if there is somebody willing to listen, however. For most, seeing "HIV+" by itself means nobody will ever inquire at all.

I've never looked at Grindr in my life, but I find this all so fascinating. Lots of talk about censorhip and such. If a person doesn't like the terms and conditions of any particular site, why not find another way of finding man sex?

I would never have posted this thread if the terms of conditions clearly covered what I did wrong.They don't, and the explanation from grindr is a little short.

If you think that isn't worth discussing, you are certainly free not to participate in the thread.

Has Grindr hasn't stopped you from saying you are HIV positive right ?

I'm having trouble parsing this.

Just to recap, since your back button appears to be broken, so far Grindr have censored the following :"HIV+ with undetectable viral load" 5 times over one month"HIV+ with undetectable viral load seeking safe sex" one time in one day

The profile now just says "HIV+" but it's been less than 24 hours, so I would say it's too early to say whether they fully approve of it.

Quote

Why is it so important to you for people on a sex hookup site to know you are undetectable ? Im needing a reminder on this because the thread is running a bit long now .

You may want to get that back button fixed. I have provided the answer at least 3 times, including now in another post to Ann, and rest assured, I am not going to do it again, I believe it was clear enough the first few times.

Mad ... I think your simply failing to see that it appears to most people reading your thread that this isn't a case of trampled free speech or grindr blocking an attempt at risk reduction ... its a case of you not being allowed to market yourself on a hook up site the way you want to .

I don't know you so Im certainly not accusing you of having these character traits but your whole thread reeks of narcissism and entitlement . There are many many important issues we face as HIV positive individual's that are worthy of taking a stand on but this isn't one of those issues , its just not .

There is nothing wrong with my back button and the questions I asked was a nice way to remind you that you should be embarrassed for this train wreck of a thread .

The fact that this thread is in living with hiv is rather nauseating to me .

Maybe it's your attitude they don't like, I still don't understand why you are acting like a dog with a bone, every site has the rules and regulation, obviously you have, in some way, violated their, so don't you think it's time to just let it go.

If you are just looking to hook up why not try somewhere else, the guys have already told you there are other sites for you to check out.

Look, blow smoke somewhere else. We've all checked out the sites from Craigslist to you-name-it. The majority of the time someone posts that they are HIV+ and undetectable they usually follow that up with, looking to bareback. We're not naive.

1) they run two versions of the site with different rules, giving iOS people a narrower pool of hits that fit the more restrictive Apple TOS.

2) Run a web based app like M.manhunt, where one saves a page to his phone's screen in lieu of downloading an app, thus going around the restrictive rules.

They seem to have gone with option one - which makes most sense from a development and maintenance POV.

Logged

"Many people, especially in the gay community, turn to oral sex as a safer alternative in the age of AIDS. And with HIV rates rising, people need to remember that oral sex is safer sex. It's a reasonable alternative."

You may want to get that back button fixed. I have provided the answer at least 3 times, including now in another post to Ann, and rest assured, I am not going to do it again, I believe it was clear enough the first few times.

Now I am convinced that this is simply you needing to feel like a victim. You snark at Jeff for asking you something you've stated before, yet, you can't get Ann's point about how others might read a profile that states HIV+, UD VL as a request for BB sex (but she, repeatedly, says that she takes you at your word that this wasn't your intent).You are digging your heels in, not only on Grindr (which is fine if you want to do so), but on here too. You aren't open to anything but your own position -- and won't even properly read and comprehend anything that flies in the face of your view. You needn't agree, but have the fucking balls to acknowledge others. Personally, I find your crusade tiresome and wholly, yes, WHOLLY, self-serving. Your packaging it up as something else, but it really is about you throwing a tantrum because you can't get your way. You have a right to do so -- but you shouldn't be so surprised that others aren't buying it.

Oh, I have to add -- if someone isn't going to have sex with you because you are poz, I find it quite dubious that adding UD VL is just the phrase they need to hear to change their mind. Now, maybe it would do the trick for someone to have bare sex -- but, of course, that isn't your intention -- so what's the point of the addition then.

I think Mad is not being treated fairly. Accusing him of throwing a tantrum, because he didn't get his way is unfair. He wants Grindr to say what the problem is. Yes, it is a free site, but many pay for it. If you violate terms of service here, we would all want to know how. They don't say. Someone deletes it, without explanation. They should put it in their posting guidelines, if they believe posting vl info is posting unsafe sex messages. They should at least tell you, when they send you a tos violation message.

And, how is posting you're neg any different from saying you're UD. Saying your neg could be seen as saying you're safe to bareback, if UD could be seen that way.

I bet HIV+ stays on your profile. I'll keep my fingers crossed. I agree with tednlou2. Obviously, congressmen, Geraldo Rivera, the ACLU, Human Rights Watch and the Hague don't care about the Byzantine injustices of gay sex sites. But Grindr could have had the balls to give a short clear explanation. Expecting one isn't wrong, but it may be unrealistic.

I have seen 300 billion HIV neg guys and their deluded, abrasive and "narcissistic" bios and adverts on cruising sites - they are more squirrely than Madbrain's wish to describe himself as undetectable.

But Madbrain, my experience on Grindr is that its not about conversation at all so I doubt you'd be engaged in educating conversations about what undetectable means or HIV generally, or anything like that, on Grindr. A regular online cruise site perhaps....

HIV+ and undetectable are just two facts, no matter how everyone chooses to interpret the intention of stating such info.

Facebook censored a woman who showed a photo of her tattooed radical mastectomy. Corporations can be spineless about their terms of use. Probably often just a side effect of keeping the business rolling. Also doesn't make people who point it out narcissists or exhibitionists.

« Last Edit: March 26, 2013, 03:48:59 AM by mecch »

Logged

“From each, according to his ability; to each, according to his need” 1875 K Marx

The thread has clearly run its course, so this will be my last post in it.

Somehow, this thread degenerated from a discussion about censorship of HIV and viral load status by a third party site, to a referendum on treatment as sole prevention and the merits of bareback sex. I want to make it clear one last time that I have never advocated either, and I feel that this second discussion should have remained completely separate from the issue of censorship. I would also like to remind the owners and moderators of Aidsmeds that its charter is about providing information, and that actively advocating for censorship of factual information does not further that charter.

This will also be last post on Aidsmeds.

I am thankful for all the help I have received from some in these parts over the past 6 years, which I can never repay. Unfortunately, the forums also breed some mindless attack dogs, and for me, dealing with the repeated personal smears far outweighs the benefits of remaining active.

For those of you who want to keep in touch, you can use old fashioned email, julien at madbrain.com will work .

I think Mad is not being treated fairly. Accusing him of throwing a tantrum, because he didn't get his way is unfair. He wants Grindr to say what the problem is. Yes, it is a free site, but many pay for it. If you violate terms of service here, we would all want to know how. They don't say. Someone deletes it, without explanation. They should put it in their posting guidelines, if they believe posting vl info is posting unsafe sex messages. They should at least tell you, when they send you a tos violation message.

And, how is posting you're neg any different from saying you're UD. Saying your neg could be seen as saying you're safe to bareback, if UD could be seen that way.

I'm not accusing him of throwing a tantrum because he wants Grindr to respond to why the deleted his profile. I think he SHOULD find out why and I think Grindr SHOULD respond to him. I am basing it on his reactions in this thread to others, as well as his actions on Grindr. People suggested it was the UD VL part and suggested he try without it to see what happens -- he refused for days, but reposted the UD VL five times. I am also basing it on his misreading of Ann's comments -- even if her first one could have been taken differently than she meant, she clearly clarified it and has yet to acknowledge that he was wrong in that.Personally, I think he's spending more time and energy than is warranted with this -- but, I am not him, so he can have at it if he chooses. I just would like to see him step back and look at this a bit more objectively while discussing it here. Most of all, I'd love to see him acknowledge that Ann wasn't insinuating anything about his intentions -- that was all in his own mind. That is where my tantrum and victim comments come from.

I see Mad has just posted -- and this post just drives home my view of a tantrum.